It’s not news that there is a persistent (and widely promoted) perception that Intelligent Design is little more than Creationism in a cheap tuxedo suit, an attempt to dress up a Christo-fascist, right-wing, theocratic agenda as though it were legitimate science, fraudulently stealing the prestige of science. (For people who believe this, science . . . in Richard Lewontin’s tellingly self-refuting phrase . . . is as a rule viewed as “the only begetter of truth.” [NB: this is a philosophical claim about accessing truth and warranting it, not a scientific one; so, such scientism falsifies itself and tends to cause self-reinforcing confusion and polarisation.])
So pernicious is this insinuation or allegation, that if we are to clear and de-polarise the atmosphere in the public square enough to actually discuss origins science and related issues in a reasonably calm manner, this issue will have to be answered.
Yes, there is a 101 level discussion here on in the UD Weak Argument Correctives, but (given the hot exchange in a current UD thread) we obviously need a bit more than that.
That’s our task today — at least, at a 102 level.
A good place to begin, is with the rise of modern constitutional, limited government democracy and its charter, the US Declaration of Independence (1776) and Constitution (1787 – 9, grand statement overview):
>>US DoI:When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . >>
>>US Constitution:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty [–> a key phrase, reflecting the Reformation era double-covenant view, nationhood and government under the God who blesses righteousness] to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Articles I – VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS, starting with the bill of rights].>>
Now, obviously, the US founders and framers were aiming for the sweet-spot of limited, constitutional government rooted in justice/rights and in the consent of the governed. They were very aware of the vortex of tyranny, abuse, corruption and oppression that governments (of whatever form) are prone to fall into, and are always needing reforms to address. Yes, governments instituted by finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed and manipulated creatures such as we are, will always have defects and so will always need reformation. (NB: Before racing off on talking points regarding the sins of Christendom, please cf. here on.)
Likewise, the founders understood the chaotic implications of anarchy and how people facing such will usually clamour for strong rule to restore order and safety — even at the risk or cost of tyranny:
U/d b for clarity, nb Nil
A second helpful point — if we wish to discuss in a calmer mood, is an observation by Bernard Lewis in his epochal 1990 essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage:
>>. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .
In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.>>
By AD 9, at the hands of Arminius (sometime commander of a Cheruscan detachment of Roman auxiliary forces . . . itself a portent), Rome had already suffered the loss of three critically needed legions at Teutoberg Forest in Germany. This meant that Rome was forever vulnerable from the West through Germany and Gaul.
By the 400’s – 600’s the Western Roman Empire collapsed under waves of invasion and immigration, breakdown of government and epidemics. As a result there was one pan European institution still standing in the West, the organised Christian church. And, since by about the same time, a massive defeat at the hands of barbarian cavalry at Adrianople in 378 showed cavalry ascendant, infantry went into a long-term decline. This meant that under the circumstances, the core of effective military power was heavy, well-trained armoured cavalry (cf. here), which was both expensive and required much devotion to training and practice. An elite, expensive, decisive force.
The result was that Europe faced chaos and further invasion, depredations and epidemics, etc. The fury of the Norsemen is proverbial, as the viking age burst upon the world with the notorious devastating raid on Lindisfarne of 793 being iconic. Nor, should we forget the major invasion of Europe from the South and East, by Muslim forces, commonly known as Moors. Charles Martel, victor at Tours, was grandfather to Charlemagne, first Holy Roman Emperor, so-called.
It is therefore unsurprising that the stabilising centre that emerged was in effect a heavy cavalry warrior class (chain, scale or laminar armour at first, the familiar plate armour was much later) allied with the clerics. Survival and the correlation of forces — a very useful Marxist concept — drove that, and if the realistic choice is domineering government or chaos and being at the mercy of marauding pirates, people will pick the former every time: give us a king to rule over us and lead us in battle.
Under such circumstances, the rise of the Feudal era and its governance culture characteristics makes a lot of sense; but, it is painful sense, written in blood and tears. At best, one could hope for lawful government, rooted in the corpus of law synthesised under Justinian as Corpus Juris Civilis, or perhaps the growing body of Common Law that emerged in England starting with Alfred the Great (and especially his Book of Dooms [cf. excerpts]).
As the graphic above hints at, sustainable democratisation only became feasible when first there was a re-balancing of the correlation of socio-cultural and military forces, initially through the rise of pike and longbow-armed infantry able to stand the charge of massed heavy cavalry at places like Crecy, Bannockburn and Agincourt. Muskets came later, and multiplied the trend. Their big brothers, cannon, enabled centralisation of power as only well-pursed kings were now able to afford big enough siege trains able to reduce old fashioned fortifications in short order, and ocean-spanning navies manned by ordinary seamen.
But far more important, was the rise of printing and the spreading of a trade in books, broadsheets, tracts and eventually newspapers, joined to the growing development of a literate general public. In this process, it is no accident that the very first book to be printed was the Gutenberg Bible, and it is no surprise that the Reformation spread across Germany and beyond when printers ran off Martin Luther’s 95 points for an intended debate and distributed it all across Germany in the course of scarcely six weeks.
The effect of this cluster of democratising forces was that modern constitutional limited democratic government only became feasible across the 1600’s and 1700’s.
Before that, all forms of government were only able to access the lower left corner of the space for government, and rebellions or breakdowns triggered or threatened a snap to the upper-right, leading to the call for a new strong man or oligarchy. Mix in selfish, ruthless factionalism, corruption, cronyism and ambitions, and the typical pattern of politics as a vicious blood sport of the elites to the cost of the ordinary people is readily explained.
And of course that is exactly when modern constitutional, democratically accountable — “We the People . . .” — limited government tasked to use the sword of the state in defence of the civil peace of justice emerged, with the United States being a particularly important first demonstration of the success of such modern democracy.
(And yes, the US founders and framers were leery of the dangers of mob rule, so they sought a balanced, mixed system with checks and balances across legislative, executive and judicial arms, with people power not only to petition but to hold accountable through elections.)
However, a very important precursor was the Dutch Republic and its declaration of Independence from Philip II of Spain, 1581:
>> . . . a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges . . . then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view . . . This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives. . . . . So, having no hope of reconciliation, and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature in our own defense, and for maintaining the rights, privileges, and liberties of our countrymen, wives, and children, and latest posterity from being enslaved by the Spaniards, been constrained to renounce allegiance to the King of Spain, and pursue such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient liberties and privileges. >>
A mere glance at such documents and underlying thought will at once show them to be deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian, Creation-anchored ethical theistic vision of blessed nationhood and just government under God, in accord with the laws of moral government appropriate to our nature. That is, the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
This does not sit well with the preferred secularist narrative of our time: theocracy is the primary threat to freedom, knowledge and progress [to what?]. But, it is historically deeply warranted.
For instance, in his second treatise on civil government, Ch 2, to lay the natural law- rights- equality foundation for what would become modern constitutional, limited democratic government, Locke cites “the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker [in his Ecclesiastical Polity, 1594+]” on equality of nature and how our sense of being owed duties of justice leads to understanding and recognition of mutual rights and duties:
>>. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . [Eccl. Polity, preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]>>
The echoes of the Golden Rule of Moshe, Jesus and “Paulo, Apostolo, Mart,” in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptural Tradition are patent. Let me cite Rom 13:8 – 10 as that addresses citizenship and law:
>>Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no wrong [–> or, harm] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.>>
>>Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 – 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 – 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 – 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian’s Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].>>
And so, of course, it is quite plain that the Judaeo-Christian tradition has clearly made a major — but now often forgotten or dismissed — contribution to the rise of modern liberty and democratic self-government.
Why, then, do we see the ever so common insinuation, accusation or simple taken-for-fact assumption that Design thought is a fraudulent front for Christo-fascist, right-wing Creationist theocracy designed to overthrow progress, science, equality and freedom, returning us to the dark ages?
First, because there is a grand myth of recent secularist progress, liberation and enlightenment through the triumph of science in the perpetual war with superstition, elitism and fundamentalist ignorance. Where fundies, everybody “knows,” are oh so prone to use violence and terrorism to impose their dubious agenda on us all.
A classic statement of this, is in Lewontin’s notorious 1997 NYRB review of Sagan’s The Demon-haunted World, in which he stated:
>>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [–> notice, the context of intended indoctrination, with a hint of being backed up by secularist institutional power to enforce such indoctrination] we[–> who? the Evolutionary Materialist elites, that’s who] must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> note the ready equation of ethical theism with ignorance and irrationality], the demons [–> notice, equating the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, to destructive demons] that exist only in their imaginations [–> assumption of atheism, to be duly dressed up in a lab coat], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality[–> to an evolutionary materialist thinker, all of reality], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover,that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [–> whose door?] The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. [–> irrationality projection again] To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen [–> again, the irrationality thesis, while actually for miracles to stand out as signs pointing beyond the usual course of the world, there must be a reliable usual course backed by the enabling of a Creator who is Reason Himself, an order that was studied and discerned by the foundational modern scientists “thinking God’s [creative and providential thoughts] after him”] . . . [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis and notes added. If you imagine this is “quote-mined” kindly cf here.]>>
This is a case where to simply cite, highlight and comment suffices to expose the ruthless power and dominance of the reigning, radically secularist evolutionary materialist, scientism-driven, progressivist elites.
Modern design theory and thought, by contrast, argues that on empirically tested, commonly seen and reliable signs such as functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, it is reasonable to infer that the world of cell based life is replete with indicators of design as cause. Indicators that are seen to be credible once the a priori evolutionary materialism straight-jacket and blinkers are removed from science. Similarly, the evidence pointing to a cosmos with its physics fine-tuned in many ways that enable C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life also points to design as best current causal explanation. And no, there is no need to appeal to or smuggle in scriptural texts and teachings to reach such conclusions. After all, that Bible-thumping fundy — NOT — Plato is a precursor to design thought.
First, the modern design theory movement is simply not a form of scripture-quoting Creationism, and if one so broadens “Creationism” that anyone who sees signs of design is deemed a “Creationist,” that term simply becomes a means of smearing people with the taint of “Fundamentalism,” “Theocracy,” “Fascism” etc.
Little more than polarising name-calling and guilt by invidious association.
That needs to stop.
Next, it should be patent that in a constitutional limited-government democracy, it is elected representatives in legislatures who account to the public as a whole who have power to make law, not some established church. Something that a lot of Christians helped to put in place, and something that the overwhelming majority of Christians strongly support.
Further, believing in God as the champion of Justice who endowed people with his image and so also responsible, rational, morally governed freedom and rights is not a sure mark of intent to impose tyrannical theocracy. Instead, it reflects a key insight on the nature and roots of a world in which there are responsibly free, reasoning, morally governed creatures. That is, that in such a world as we inhabit, justice, rights, duties and other moral OUGHTs must be rooted in a world-foundational IS.
For, non-being (the real no-thing) can have no causal powers so if utter nothing ever was, such would forever obtain. Thus — as a world now patently is — there was always a necessary being, one which cannot not be, as the very root of reality in any actual world. Moreover, such will forever obtain, by virtue of that necessity of being and so also, some world shall always be.Our temporal world entails an underlying eternal, necessary being reality as its ground.
In such a context, finding ourselves under moral government, we will find that the only serious candidate necessary being and credible explanation for such a world, is that that necessary being, eternal IS is the root of OUGHT. Namely, a necessary, maximally great inherently good Creator-God worthy of ultimate loyalty and the responsible, freely offered reasonable — not irrational, ignorant or superstitious! — service of doing the good as enlightened in the first instance by our evident nature.
And so, morality is an inextricable part of the core fabric of reality.
So also, the laws of nature and of nature’s God that govern us.
The real question (as is posed in the epochal second para of the US DoI) is whether we are willing to acknowledge and live by such self-evident truths, or will instead insist on clinging to the absurdities attendant on rejecting them, to our detriment and the ruin of our civilisation. Whether this happens by sliding directly into the vortex of tyranny or else via the repelling pole by chaos, crisis and anarchy leading to the cry for order, even at the price of liberty and justice, makes but little difference.
Locke, in the introduction to his essay on human understanding, section 5, counsels us soberingly — even, explicitly citing both the New Testament and the Old Testament — that the candle that is set up in us shines brightly enough for all our purposes:
>>Men Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 – 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 – 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 – 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 – 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27, cf. Matt 6:22 – 23 and Eph. 4:17 – 24] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.>>
What about the dangerous, right-wing fascism?
First, we need to clarify the commonly understood meanings of socialism, capitalism and fascism, per the Collins English Dictionary:
>>socialism
n
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
capitalism
n
1. (Economics) Also called: free enterprise or private enterprise an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions. Compare socialism1
Fascism
n
1. (Government,Politics & Diplomacy)thepoliticalmovement,doctrine,system, or regime of BenitoMussolini in Italy,whichencouragedmilitarismandnationalism,organizingthecountryalonghierarchicalauthoritarianlines
fascism
n (sometimescapital)
1. (Government,Politics & Diplomacy)anyideology or movementinspired by ItalianFascism,such as GermanNationalSocialism;anyright-wingnationalistideology or movementwith an authoritarianandhierarchicalstructurethat is fundamentallyopposed to democracyandliberalism
2. (Government,Politics & Diplomacy)anyideology,movement,programme,tendency,etc,thatmay be characterized as right-wing,chauvinist,authoritarian,etc
3. prejudice in relation to thesubjectspecified:bodyfascism.
But in fact, it is arguable that the typical political discourse of left vs right wings is outdated once traditional Monarchy lost the contest to classical liberal, constitutional democratic government and liberal, free-market, free enterprise economics has shown itself so superior that the largest nominally communist state in the world, China, has reverted to market economics, including even a stock exchange. Where also, the second most populous Communist — indeed Stalinist — state, North Korea is evidently now a monarchy in its third generation of de facto kings, the first as “eternal president” having been made a god.
But as of recent decades past, classical liberals have been re-labelled conservative rightists, and have often found themselves deemed suspect due to perceived fascist tendencies, fascism (including the National Socialist German Workers Party . . . i.e. the Nazis — and yes, that is a big clue) being deemed a political disease of the Right. However, much of this becomes deeply questionable once we ponder not only the above definitions and compare what fascists actually did.
Daniel Hannan, late of the UK Telegraph’s blogs, offers some re-balancing perspectives, and I will allow myself to clip just one of the posters decorating his blog post:
The socialist face of Fascism/Nazism: “The National Socialist German worker stands against capitalism”
>>Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: February 25th, 2014
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.
Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”. . . . >>
Sheldon Richman in Concise Enc of Econ and Liberty adds:
>>Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production,fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production . . . >>
Richman also cites Mussolini and Hitler:
MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography:
>>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>>
HITLER, per citation:
>>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>>
The burning Reichstag
So, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. At heart, fascism is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.”
In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then panic and align with him, hoping to at least influence him while giving him effectively unlimited dictatorial power in the face of a crisis [nothing like a burning Reichstag to get people into a panic!] — which becomes tantamount to ownership by the state concentrated in a politically messianistic autocrat or at most a new oligarchy in alliance with older centres of power too panicked to see the implications of the secret police 4:00 am knock on the door.
That is, we have now reached the threshold of tyranny.
And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge. (Cf. here on the last couple of times around, with particular reference to arms races and where they often lead.)
Crisis — too often, manipulated — and perceived chaos, triggering reversion to the tyrannical vortex as shown above.
From this, we can see that the dynamics of state power, law and leadership are a more potentially fruitful pattern of thinking than trying to attach labels such as left or right wing, especially for the rhetorical purpose of tainting in order to polarise beyond what is justified by actual facts and reasonable consideration of same. And, particularly we can see that the limited government constitutional democracy in defence of the civil peace of justice is inherently vulnerable to chaos and/or tyranny, but with insightful principled support is sustainable.
It is sad that the debates over design theory have been so tainted, but with goodwill such can be removed.
Likewise — given the great and costly contribution of people living, thinking and working within the Judaeo-Christian frame to the growth and success of modern liberty and limited democratic self government in defence of the civil peace of justice — and, never mind the ever present issue of the sins and challenges of Christendom — we should refrain from one-sided litanies of projection and accusation against people who stand within that tradition, as though they are necessarily a peculiar threat to responsible freedom.
I trust we may now be able to proceed in a more even-tempered frame of mind. END
Comments
kairosfocus:
Carpathian, lawless rebellion and anarchy lead straight to tyranny.
But there is no need for anarchy as we have seen in the Soviet Union rebellion.
People simply said no, a lot of people.
If a majority of people had said no, slavery would have stopped immediately.Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Carpathian, lawless rebellion and anarchy lead straight to tyranny. The case of John Brown gives a plain example. Even in Haiti where uprising was successful, forces were let loose that still haunt that country, never mind that the agreement at cannon-mouth by which the people of Haiti were forced into generations of debt to buy out their value "Ayti ave to pay" did not help. In our rage we too often favour rebellion, the evidence favours the slower path of reform, and resorting to force only under circumstances where remonstrance is only met with hard hearted despotism, and where the correlation of forces shows that there is reasonable prospect. Otherwise, all is for naught. KFkairosfocus
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Yes, some tried to make the Bible teach racism, slavery etc. They did so by ignoring or distorting the whole counsel and trajectory of scripture.
True.
An even bigger problem however were the followers in the Southern States who didn't take matters into their own hands and free the slaves.
All the Christian references in the constitution were meaningless to these people.
The religious component in government failed as did the religious component in those governed.
At any point in time, the Christians who held slaves could have said no to slavery and yes to freedom and equality, but they didn't.
Nothing in the constitution or the Bible helped the slaves despite the fact that the vast majority of the citizens saw themselves as patriotic Christians.Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Carpathian: This is why I rule out philosophy as a basis for law-making since the the type of laws government should be restricted to don’t require it.
Siver Asiatic: Government makes laws based on moral teachings. That’s why religion and a belief in God is so important.
If government didn't make laws based on their particular belief in God we wouldn't have problems with those who have a different belief in God.
History has shown us what happens when religions clash, so why would we knowingly put ourselves in that very position that we have seen fail?
When it comes to traffic lights, what is the philosophical component to deciding to put one in?
While you might come up with one you can also justify that law without any philosophy at all by simply modelling that intersection with and then without a light.
A belief in God is irrelevant when justifying a traffic light.Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
KF, I'm a scion of the Carolingian dynasty (hat-tip to CM), but leaving the army as a gunner II class, I feel I might have let the side down a little. The fact of Duane Doberman having the same rank as me (private II class) and also working in the motor pool, wouldn't, I suspect, have added much lustre to the family escutcheon.
But anyway it's been very plausibly stated that there was never a slave who did not have a king among his forefathers, not any king, who did not have a slave among his forefathers. You go, Charles! as the Americans say. Or, you rock, man!Axel
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Carpathian
Justinian's institutes of law (the built-in textbook for Corpus Juris Civilis -- a major synthesis of Roman jurisprudence that is still the background to most western law, even influencing Common Law . . . esp through the Norman contribution):
TITLE III. OF THE LAW OF PERSONS
In the law of persons, then, the first division is into free men and slaves.
1 Freedom, from which men are called free, is a man's natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is not prevented by force or law:
2 slavery is an institution of the law of nations, against nature subjecting one man to the dominion of another.
3 The name 'slave' is derived from the practice of generals to order the preservation and sale of captives, instead of killing them; hence they are also called mancipia, because they are taken from the enemy by the strong hand.
4 Slaves are either born so, their mothers being slaves themselves; or they become so, and this either by the law of nations, that is to say by capture in war, or by the civil law, as when a free man, over twenty years of age, collusively allows himself to be sold in order that he may share the purchase money.
5 The condition of all slaves is one and the same: in the conditions of free men there are many distinctions; to begin with, they are either free born, or made free . . .
That is a picture of the law Paul faced, where to aid an escapee was to court sentence of court. And even that law from the outset immediately recognises that slavery is not a normal or desirable state.
So, Paul faces a going concern despotism, and he acts in the only reasonable way open to him. He shows a better, heart softening, eye opening way through the gospel. A way that told decisively as the FIRST civil rights movement once a critical mass of circumstances allowed emergence of an increasingly democratic polity in the world in a civilisation.
Now, look at how Paul acts in the face of just such an escapee, in Philemon (previously brought to your attention but ignored):
Philemon 1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved fellow worker 2 and Apphia our sister [--> fundamental equality, bringing to bear the GR, ground of the second motto of the antislavery society: Am I not a woman and a sister?] and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philemon's Love and Faith
4 I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, 6 and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.[a] 7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you.
Paul's Plea for Onesimus
8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus,[b] whose father I became in my imprisonment. [--> fundamental equality, here with an escaped slave and apparently a thief also, now penitent and equal in Christ] 11 (Formerly he was useless to you [--> word play on the name, useful] , but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. [--> have a heart] 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a bondservant[c] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. [--> Antislavery society motto: am I not a man and a brother]
17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. 20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ. [--> a direct appeal for manumission and an offer to make good losses; btw this directly contributed to the abolition of slavery]
21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you.
Final Greetings
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Nor is this all, observe 1 Cor 7:
1 Cor 7:21 Were you a bondservant[d] when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants[e] of men.
In short, live with what you have to but seek a better way if open to you. And freedom is so much the better that you are to avoid becoming enslaved at all possible cost.
Yes, some tried to make the Bible teach racism, slavery etc. They did so by ignoring or distorting the whole counsel and trajectory of scripture.
Which brings us back to the pivotal Judaeo-Christian, scroptural ethical principle as has been repeatedly pointed out to you: we are equal by nature and neighbours. Neighbour love does no harm but instead good, and fulfills justice as a result.
The problem is, you seem locked into finding talking points to reject, dismiss, excuse hostility, censorship, locking out from freedom of expression and general ghettoising.
That is hostile, embittered heart and closed mind.
Please, think again.
KFkairosfocus
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Carpathian
The reason they must all have a right is because humans are fallible creatures.
That's your philosophical view. Another philosophical view could be that all humans are infallible. Another view could be that some humans are infallible and others are not.
All of those views can be proven correct.
To say that we suddenly become infallible when it comes to religion doesn’t sound plausible.
You're judging everything based on your own philosophy. A different philosophy will judge things differently.
This also means that all religions may have gotten something right.
If you believe this, then it's important to find out what they got right - especially if it is necessary for the success of your own life.
However, the key point is -- who judges whether the religion got things right or not? Do you? You would have to have the authority to judge if religious teachings are right -- therefore, you would have more authority than any of the prophets or teachers you are judging.
You have to understand that for millions of people, it is your religion that may be false, whatever that religion may be.
You're right and I understand that. And that's why religious dialogue is so important. Eventually, we arrive at the truth about things.
That is why every religion should have equal rights to speak but none of them should have a right to govern.
That doesn't follow. Every human is infallible. But humans govern things. Just because a religion may not have all the truth, why shouldn't it govern things also?
As far as laws go, there is no need for example, to look at the philosophical position in deciding whether a traffic light is required at an intersection.
A traffic light does no good if nobody needs to obey it. So, it's the reason why they should obey that requires philosophy. How serious is the crime of running a red light? Our philosophy tells us that. It tells us how serious the crime is, what good works are, what is our purpose in life, how we should punish people, can they be corrected, and what are the most important things in life and society. Without that, we don't know. We could execute someone for running a red light.
If you start looking at all laws, you will find that none that apply to everyone require a philosophical component.
You can see different laws based on different philosophies. We see that in Islamic societies, for example.
This is why I rule out philosophy as a basis for law-making since the the type of laws government should be restricted to don’t require it.
Government makes laws based on moral teachings. That's why religion and a belief in God is so important.Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Carpathian: If a politician believes in a literal Bible he will be biased against a literal Koran.
StephenB: That is an irrational statement. The Bible is not “literal.” It is the interpretation which is either literal, literalist, or subjective. (I am sure that you do not know the difference).
Of course it is the interpretation I am talking about.
I don't believe anyone could not grasp this so why would I have to spell it out?
Attacking me doesn't help your position.
Religion has no business in government since people, those entities that interpret the Bible and other holy books, make mistakes, i.e. errors .Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Total nonsense. The principles of slavery found in the Koran have absolutely nothing to do with the principles of freedom found in the bible.
Bad example.
The Christians in the southern states could have given the slaves their freedom but didn't.
They could have treated them with the same respect that all human beings, such as white people in the South enjoyed, but didn't do it.
Christians could have led the way by example but they didn't.
Thomas Jefferson–“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?
Your quotes meant nothing to those Christians that held slaves.
From what I have seen, every holy book has great passages when taken metaphorically and yet they all fail when they are taken literally.
The one common denominator of all these religions is people.
If you are a "good" person, it doesn't seem to matter what your religion is.
If you are a "bad" person, you will interpret your religion in a way to justify your actions as being "good".
History shows that religions function as political powers.Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Steve
This from Morris is astonishing to me, as I did not know of it:
Gouverneur Morris–“For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”
To see how hard that hits the nail's head, look at the OP esp the cube graphic.
KF
PS: Please email me at the usual, I am unable to reach you by email as there is something odd with Yahoo and Bell. At least that is what I see.kairosfocus
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Carpathian
My problem is with fundamentalism in government
Do you mean this kind of fundamentalism?
John Adams-- "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.
Benjamin Rush--"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
Noah Webster-- "[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."
Gouverneur Morris--"For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. The herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."
Fisher Ames--"[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind."
John Jay--"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."
James Wilson--"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."
Robert Winthrop-- "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."
George Washington--"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
Benjamin Franklin-- "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof."
Thomas Jefferson--"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
John Hancock--"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
If a politician believes in a literal Bible he will be biased against a literal Koran.
That is an irrational statement. The Bible is not "literal." It is the interpretation which is either literal, literalist, or subjective. (I am sure that you do not know the difference).
That will become a big problem when the situations reverse.
We in the West will end up in the same sort of problems as we see in the Shiite/Sunni power struggle.
Total nonsense. The principles of slavery found in the Koran have absolutely nothing to do with the principles of freedom found in the bible.StephenB
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
To say that we suddenly become infallible when it comes to religion doesn’t sound plausible.
Strawman, linked to major question begging about the nature of reality.
No one in the Judaeo-Christian tradition claims humans are ever infallible in themselves.
But once God is there, God both will be good, true and able to communicate, which is a very different proposition.
So the real issue is, is God there and how can we confidently know that, which is philosophical [we here speak of truth, knowledge, warrant, logic and knowledge and grounds of same] before it is ever theological.
A general discussion of the foundational issues at 101 level is here on, as you have been pointed to but have doubtless dismissed: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu
Next, on the credible reality of God, a useful point is the slice that appears in the OP above, which just happens to set the matter in the context of justice:
. . . believing in God as the champion of Justice who endowed people with his image and so also responsible, rational, morally governed freedom and rights is not a sure mark of intent to impose tyrannical theocracy. Instead, it reflects a key insight on the nature and roots of a world in which there are responsibly free, reasoning, morally governed creatures. That is, that in such a world as we inhabit, justice, rights, duties and other moral OUGHTs must be rooted in a world-foundational IS.
For, non-being (the real no-thing) can have no causal powers so if utter nothing ever was, such would forever obtain. Thus — as a world now patently is — there was always a necessary being, one which cannot not be, as the very root of reality in any actual world. Moreover, such will forever obtain, by virtue of that necessity of being and so also, some world shall always be.Our temporal world entails an underlying eternal, necessary being reality as its ground.
In such a context, finding ourselves under moral government, we will find that the only serious candidate necessary being and credible explanation for such a world, is that that necessary being, eternal IS is the root of OUGHT. Namely, a necessary, maximally great inherently good Creator-God worthy of ultimate loyalty and the responsible, freely offered reasonable — not irrational, ignorant or superstitious! — service of doing the good as enlightened in the first instance by our evident nature.
And so, morality is an inextricable part of the core fabric of reality.
So also, the laws of nature and of nature’s God that govern us.
The real question (as is posed in the epochal second para of the US DoI) is whether we are willing to acknowledge and live by such self-evident truths, or will instead insist on clinging to the absurdities attendant on rejecting them, to our detriment and the ruin of our civilisation.
In short, it is credible to acknowledge that our world points to its being a creation by the inherently good creator God.
Then, we have not been left to the challenges of abstract speculation to learn something of that God.
There is a prophetic tradition where men spoke of messiah to come, who would fulfill some hundreds of signs altogether, men who showed by their own lives that hey had been touched by God.
They spoke not in their own name or claimed personal infallibility but as witnesses of the truth spoken by God.
And, at the right time frame, someone came who fulfilled those signs, and gave the greatest sign of all, rising from the dead in accord with prophecies then 700 years old and now almost 2700 years old.
On this, you are again invited to look here:
http://vimeo.com/17960119
And here is the apostle Paul, in Athens, speaking to its intellectual and cultural leadership, 50 AD:
Ac 17:18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
Paul Addresses the Areopagus
22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d]
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e]
29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” [--> with over 500 witnesses, not one of whom could be turned, not in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse]
Those who, having learned of these things have believed and have encountered God through Christ, and having been transformed thereby stand in witness tot he power and truth of the scriptures that bear witness to him.
And that is nothing like the strawman you set up and knocked over, ever so confident that God just is not to be taken as a serious possibility.
I think you need to think again about your own assumptions and their foundations in light of the challenges of comparative difficulties and the challenges of the sort of history and living experience of millions across thousands of years and around the world I speak of in brief.
And having done so, I think you need to look again at the attitude you have so often expressed regarding those you dismiss as "religious" or "fundamentalist." Including, when you express assertions that would censor, silence, lock out of freedom of association and peaceful assembly, and ghettoise.
Indeed, it is quite evident that those you dismiss as "fundamentalist" you imagine to be inevitably ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
The evidence of this and other threads should suffice to show you that many Christians have been and are deeply educated, thoughtful, serious people. many of us are deeply committed to just, limited, democratic government, many of us over the centuries paid a heavy and sometimes terrible price to bring that heritage to us. Indeed, some of that history is literally written into my name, a part of the history of my homeland.
That is why I am again going to speak in warning to you: the lessons of sound history were paid for in blood and tears, if we dismiss, despise or neglect them, we doom ourselves to pay the same price over and over again.
KFkairosfocus
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
You seem to be fixated on dismissing biblical literalism on little more than dismissive stereotypical quips, but don’t come across as having seriously grappled with the core warrant behind the gospel and that for the broader Judaeo-Christian ethical theistic worldview on a comparative difficulties basis.
My problem is with fundamentalism in government.
If a politician believes in a literal Bible he will be biased against a literal Koran.
That will become a big problem when the situations reverse.
We in the West will end up in the same sort of problems as we see in the Shiite/Sunni power struggle.
Governments should make sure the lights stay turned on, the roads are paved and no one gets treated differently because of his skin color, gender or religious beliefs.
We wouldn't allow leaders to make legislation with a racial bias so why would we allow a religious bias in government?Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
F/N: Impact of the battle of Tours:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/battle-of-tours
>>At the Battle of Tours near Poitiers, France, Frankish leader Charles Martel, a Christian, defeats a large army of Spanish Moors, halting the Muslim advance into Western Europe. Abd-ar-Rahman, the Muslim governor of Cordoba, was killed in the fighting, and the Moors retreated from Gaul, never to return in such force.
Charles was the illegitimate son of Pepin, the powerful mayor of the palace of Austrasia and effective ruler of the Frankish kingdom. After Pepin died in 714 (with no surviving legitimate sons), Charles beat out Pepin’s three grandsons in a power struggle and became mayor of the Franks. He expanded the Frankish territory under his control and in 732 repulsed an onslaught by the Muslims.
Victory at Tours ensured the ruling dynasty of Martel’s family, the Carolingians. His son Pepin became the first Carolingian king of the Franks, and his grandson Charlemagne carved out a vast empire that stretched across Europe.>>
Still felt today.
KFkairosfocus
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Carpathian: In my case, I would like to see a law that ensures all religions the right to practice their own faith without government intrusion due to the beliefs of a politician whose legislation is based on one specific religion.
Silver Asiatic: That’s fine as it is, but without philosophy, we don’t have any way to understand what you’re saying. Why should all religions have a right? What if one religion is false and the other is true? Why should false religions have a right to be spread through society, causing harm to people (even only by getting them to believe something that is false)? Shouldn’t a good government protect the truth and not allow falsehood?
The reason they must all have a right is because humans are fallible creatures.
To say that we suddenly become infallible when it comes to religion doesn't sound plausible.
This also means that all religions may have gotten something right.
It follows from this that since we are not infallible and all religions get at least something right then it is by looking at all religions that will get us closer to the answers people are looking for.
Silver Asiatic: Why should false religions have a right to be spread through society, causing harm to people (even only by getting them to believe something that is false)?
You have to understand that for millions of people, it is your religion that may be false, whatever that religion may be.
That is why every religion should have equal rights to speak but none of them should have a right to govern.
As far as laws go, there is no need for example, to look at the philosophical position in deciding whether a traffic light is required at an intersection.
If you start looking at all laws, you will find that none that apply to everyone require a philosophical component.
This is why I rule out philosophy as a basis for law-making since the the type of laws government should be restricted to don't require it.Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
F/N: I have added a link on the pivotal battle of Tours:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/361045/battle-tours-raymond-ibrahim
_______________
>>on October 10, in the year 732, one of history’s most decisive battles took place, demarcating the extent of Islam’s western conquests and ensuring the survival of the West. Prior to this, the Islamic conquerors had for a full century been subjugating all the peoples and territories standing in their western march — including Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. In 711, the Muslims made their fateful crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar, landing on European soil. Upon disembarking, the leader of the Muslims, Tariq bin Ziyad, ordered their fleet burned, explaining, “We have not come here to return. Either we conquer and establish ourselves here, or we perish.” This famous Tariq anecdote — often recalled by modern jihadis — highlights the jihadi nature of the Umayyad caliphate (661–750), the superpower of its day. Indeed, as most historians have acknowledged, the Umayyad caliphate was the jihadi state par excellence. Its very existence was coterminous with its conquests. Its legitimacy as “viceroy” of Allah was based on subjugating lands in his name. Once the Muslims were on European soil, the depredations continued unabated. Writes one Arab chronicler regarding the Muslims’ northern advance past the Pyrenees: “Full of wrath and pride,” the Muslims “went through all places like a desolating storm. Prosperity made those warriors insatiable. . . . Everything gave way to their scimitars, the robbers of lives.” Even in far-off England, a contemporary, the anchorite known as the Venerable Bede, wrote, “A plague of Saracens wrought wretched devastation and slaughter upon Gaul.” . . . .
“Alas,” exclaimed the Franks, “what a misfortune! What an indignity! We have long heard of the name and conquests of the Arabs; we were apprehensive of their attack from the East [the Siege of Byzantium, 717-718]: they have now conquered Spain, and invade our country on the side of the West.” Conversely, the Muslims, flush with a century’s worth of victories, seem to have had an ambivalent view, at best, regarding Frankish mettle. When asked about the Franks some years before the Battle of Tours, the then-emir of Spain, Musa, replied: “They are a folk right numerous, and full of might: brave and impetuous in the attack, but cowardly and craven in the event of defeat. Never has a company from my army been beaten.” If this view betrayed overconfidence, Musa’s successor, Abd al-Rahman (“Slave to the Merciful”), exhibited even greater haughtiness regarding those whom he was about to engage in battle. At the head of some 80,000 Muslims, primarily mounted Moors, Rahman was greatly motivated in his destructive northward march into the heart of France by rumors of more riches for the taking, particularly at the Basilica of St. Martin of Tours. Rahman initially separated his army into several divisions to better ensure the plunder of Gaul. Writes Isidore, author of the Chronicle of 754: “[Rahman] destroyed palaces, burned churches, and imagined he could pillage the basilica of St. Martin of Tours. It is then that he found himself face to face with the lord of Austrasia, Charles, a mighty warrior from his youth, and trained in all the occasions of arms.” Indeed, unbeknownst to the Muslims, the battle-hardened Frankish ruler, Charles, aware of their intentions, had begun rallying his liegemen to his standard. Having risen to power in France in 717 — the same year a mammoth Muslim army was laying siege to Byzantium — Charles appreciated the significance of the Islamic threat. Accordingly, he intercepted the invaders somewhere between Poitiers and Tours . . . .
Writes an anonymous Arab chronicler: “Near the river Owar [Loire], the two great hosts of the two languages and the two creeds [Islam and Christianity] were set in array against each other. The hearts of Abd al-Rahman, his captains, and his men were filled with wrath and pride, and they were the first to begin to fight. The Muslim horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side, until the going down of the sun.” According to the Chronicle of 754, much of which was composed from eyewitness accounts, “The men of the north stood as motionless as a wall, they were like a belt of ice frozen together, and not to be dissolved, as they slew the Arab with the sword. The Austrasians [Franks], vast of limb, and iron of hand, hewed on bravely in the thick of the fight; it was they who found and cut down the Saracens’ king [Rahman].” Military historian Victor Davis Hanson writes: “When the sources speak of ‘a wall,’ ‘a mass of ice,’ and ‘immovable lines’ of infantrymen, we should imagine a literal human rampart, nearly invulnerable, with locked shields in front of armored bodies, weapons extended to catch the underbellies of any Islamic horsemen foolish enough to hit the Franks at a gallop.” As night fell, the Muslims and Christians disengaged and withdrew to their tents. With the coming of dawn, the Franks discovered that the Muslims, perhaps seized with panic because their emir was dead, had fled south during the night — still looting, burning, and plundering all and sundry as they went. Hanson offers a realistic picture of the aftermath: “Poitiers [or Tours] was, as all cavalry battles, a gory mess, strewn with thousands of wounded or dying horses, abandoned plunder, and dead and wounded Arabs . . . >>
______________
One of the turning points of history.
KFkairosfocus
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
F/N: Food for thought on balancing issues/questions re history: https://www.nas.org/articles/2015_apush_misses_the_reasons_america_is_exceptional (I do not need to endorse a slate of points to note that significant concerns are raised relevant to the focus of this thread.) KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Zachriel, I simply repeat that enough has long since been said for the reasonable person. I simply repeat that the upper plane is one of no leadership and the lower, autocratic leadership and just above oligarchy. Once there is no leadership in a populated region, there will be natural forces to move away from an anarchic condition, and absent strong controls, that will tend to the strong man to restore order. Autocratic leadership, unless checked has a notorious tendency, with the Reichstag bearing the words, the German People a-burning being only the most notorious recent case. And, that patently implies the corners immediately. The top rear right one is just where the repelling tendency is strongest and the bottom left front where the tendency to go downhill so to speak reaches the lowest point. As for the left-right spectrum if the supporters have a sustained problem with identifying the proper locus of the national socialist german workers party, then that discredits it, rhetoric about standing for equality notwithstanding. On the performance of state dominated and controlled economies, the verdict has been in for decades -- markets are far superior; if you doubt ask why Communist ruled China has a stock exchange. The big message is that good govt, though sustainable, has to be actively supported in adequate ways . . . something that has been undermined for decades if not generations, often in the name of progress. Well, there is a natural trend of progress . . . downhill to tyranny. And that is a key message of the model, implying that at all times the people need to be well aware of the grounds of limited government accountable before the public, sustaining justice as a balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities and with judicious leadership. In turn raising the issue of the grounding of moral government and the only serious answer to the IS-OUGHT gap. An answer that, notoriously progressivists in our time despise, loathe and fear to the point of systematically distorting the history of the rise of modern liberty and democracy. KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: I gave enough for a reasonable person with some background or willing to do a bit of reading and reflection, to see the force of what I had to say.
None of your latest comment comes close to forming a response to the points that were raised. We could repeat them again, but you would surely ignore them again.Zachriel
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Carpathian
There is no need for a religious or philosophical basis to government when its sole purpose is ensure peace and fairness.
But that is not the sole purpose of many governments on earth today. The reason we have different governments is because they start with different philosophical and religious convictions.
While your need for peace may be religiously based, mine isn’t and that’s okay if we can both agree that laws are necessary in a practical sense.
It's not ok if the reason you make laws has nothing to do with philosophy and religion. You could make up any law you want for any reason you want. With a philosophical and religious basis, we can know the purpose for human life and therefore the purpose for the laws.
In my case, I would like to see a law that ensures all religions the right to practice their own faith without government intrusion due to the beliefs of a politician whose legislation is based on one specific religion.
That's fine as it is, but without philosophy, we don't have any way to understand what you're saying. Why should all religions have a right? What if one religion is false and the other is true? Why should false religions have a right to be spread through society, causing harm to people (even only by getting them to believe something that is false)? Shouldn't a good government protect the truth and not allow falsehood?
This is not a philosophical idea but rather a practical one in order to avoid religious wars.
The difficult thing about practical ideas that don't have philosophical reasons to support them, is that conditions can change. In this case, you want to prevent religious wars. Are all religious wars bad? Should we take every means possible to prevent them? What should we do to people who try to create religious wars, or who are actually waging religious war now? Should we stop the war, or just let it keep going?
These all require some philosophical ideas to deal with the issues.Silver Asiatic
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Zachriel, I gave enough for a reasonable person with some background or willing to do a bit of reading and reflection, to see the force of what I had to say. The Reichstag fire incident and its aftermath would go a long way for that. That is all I need to do here. The key utility of the framework lies elsewhere in any case, and I am confident the framework is good for purpose, having already checked it against a fair cross section of history. All I will say on the common portrayal of fascism as right wing, sustained for decades in the teeth of clear evidence, it discredits the l/r framework that seems to depend so much on it and on the rhetoric of "equality," in a context where the real equality is long since addressed in say the US DoI 1776: all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights . . ." As for socialism, the verdict on reasonably free markets [as opposed to crony kleptocracies extracting rents through political connexions] vs central planning and de facto state ownership by control is long since in. Markets work, central planning fails, and von Mises saw why back in the 1930's and 30's: inability to solve the vastly distributed, dyanamic and hard to quantify planing challenge to do the equivalent of what a loosely coped network of planers in households and firms interacting through markets demonstrably readily do. Even the Communists in China know that. Socialism, too, is dead. The real issue is to deal with market limitations and failures [including those of the environment], and to find ways to solve key welfare problems without crippling the market and innovation based on government getting out of hand. KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
You seem to be fixated on dismissing biblical literalism on little more than dismissive stereotypical quips, but don't come across as having seriously grappled with the core warrant behind the gospel and that for the broader Judaeo-Christian ethical theistic worldview on a comparative difficulties basis. I think you would be well advised to address the truth and life issues here on, starting with the video: http://vimeo.com/17960119 . I think the worldview warrant issues here on may help you also.
KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Anyone who accepts evolutionism is not thinking.
Evolutionism's tales of life never happened.
Anyone who believes in it should not be in any position that affects other people.Virgil Cain
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Carpathian: There is no need for religion or philosophy at all when making laws.
Silver Asiatic: Why does there need to be laws or government? Why should people be forced to obey laws they don’t like? Why does the government have authority to make and enforce laws?
The government gets its authority from the governed.
There is no need for a religious or philosophical basis to government when its sole purpose is ensure peace and fairness.
While your need for peace may be religiously based, mine isn't and that's okay if we can both agree that laws are necessary in a practical sense.
In my case, I would like to see a law that ensures all religions the right to practice their own faith without government intrusion due to the beliefs of a politician whose legislation is based on one specific religion.
This is not a philosophical idea but rather a practical one in order to avoid religious wars.Carpathian
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Carpathian, you need to look again at what you have been putting on the table. KF
You need to read what I write before you respond.Carpathian
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Mung:
Which of your holy books did you get that from? Yes, you’re a danger. Mostly to yourself, but that could change at any moment.
Anyone who believes their holy book is literal is no longer thinking for themselves.
A world-wide flood as described in the Noah's Flood story, never happened.
Anyone who believes it did should not be in government making laws.Carpathian
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
mike1962:
mike1962: Carpathian,
Is that evident in the same way that murdering your neighbor is wrong is evident?
Carpathian: Good question.
A good answer would come from the Sunni and Shiite neighbors killing each other in Iraq or the Roman Catholic and Protestant neighbors killing each other in Northern Ireland.
mike1962: No. I’m asking you.
It is not evident to me, or to the Shiites and Sunnis, or to the Christians on both sides of the American Civil War, or to the Christians, Muslims and Buddhists on all sides of WWII, that murdering your neighbor is wrong.
If my neighbor tries to kill me and I defend myself I might find myself charged with murder or not charged with any crime, depending on whether it happened in New York State or Texas, or whether a state has a stand your ground law, or whether the DA decides not to prosecute, etc.
You might want to rephrase your question because as it stands, it has less to do with morality than it does with reality and legality.Carpathian
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: I gave an example or two, sufficient to show the realism, not only of corner but mid point.
Two examples doesn't chart a three-dimensional matrix. It doesn't even illustrate a two-dimensional matrix. And you ignored the other objections, as well.
kairosfocus: the decades long failure to properly address fascism utterly discredits the usual L/R
If we define left-right conventionally as egalitarian-hierarchical, then fascism is clearly on the right, "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fascism
That you prefer some other type of analysis doesn't change what others mean by the terms.Zachriel
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Zachriel, I repeat, the decades long failure to properly address fascism utterly discredits the usual L/R f/w. If you lack the historical awareness to see what lies behind what I have done -- or are unwilling to use it, I cannot help you. KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Zachriel, I gave an example or two, sufficient to show the realism, not only of corner but mid point. Two corners are already major features of the framework as discussed. I also took time to note that the top face is no leadership (which may happen by crisis or decapitation/assassination etc) and the bottom, autocratic leadership -- which can worm its way into any situation and pull towards tyranny. I think that sufficient for a reasonable person with some historical familiarity -- familiarity with reasonable novels may even be enough. KFkairosfocus
>>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [–> notice, the context of intended indoctrination, with a hint of being backed up by secularist institutional power to enforce such indoctrination] we [–> who? the Evolutionary Materialist elites, that’s who] must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> note the ready equation of ethical theism with ignorance and irrationality], the demons [–> notice, equating the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, to destructive demons] that exist only in their imaginations [–> assumption of atheism, to be duly dressed up in a lab coat], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> to an evolutionary materialist thinker, all of reality], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [–> whose door?] The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. [–> irrationality projection again] To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen [–> again, the irrationality thesis, while actually for miracles to stand out as signs pointing beyond the usual course of the world, there must be a reliable usual course backed by the enabling of a Creator who is Reason Himself, an order that was studied and discerned by the foundational modern scientists “thinking God’s [creative and providential thoughts] after him”] . . . [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis and notes added. If you imagine this is “quote-mined” kindly cf here.]>>
